• federal reverse@feddit.orgM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    Ok so you basically want unregulated immigration and think that any attempts to stop it is nazi-adjacent, or just straight up nazi behaviour.

    Nice strawman! Where did you buy it? I usually get mine at Aldi’s, but I’ve recently wondered whether I should switch up.

    On a more serious note: Of course, immigration should be controlled. It should not be cut off though.

    Way to argue in bad faith. People can be “illegal immigrants” which is what is being discussed.

    Absolutely in good faith. There’s a reason why the phrasing “illegal immigrant” was coined: It’s a derogatory term to criminalize people who are usually fleeing their home countries. And often enough, it’s even shortened to “illegals”, making the intended dehumanization even more obvious.

    Making a process for asylum seekers to get approval to enter the country before entering the country isn’t “removing rights of asylum seekers for due process” in any way.

    Now that’s a bad-faith argument! Again, that process usually centers around “welcome centers” or whatever the euphemism du jour is, in other words: offshored internment camps. I suspect there may be reasons why Italy’s Albanian camp project and the UK’s Rwandan camp project were each struck down by courts multiple times. Notably, cost projection for both of these were rather interesting too. But gotta make someone rich in the process, right?

    You mean the MS-13 gang member who has lived in the country illegally for 13 years without any attempt to become a legal citizen, who had twice been ordered to be deported back to his home country, where he now is?

    Don’t know the specific case; is that the case with the photoshopped knuckle tattoo though?

    In any case, I was referring the sort of average profile of a person that ends up getting deported. Statistically, the chances of the deported being violent criminals is becoming much lower, the higher the number of deportations. And that’s pretty logical: most people are not actually criminal, and if you’re just deporting to juice the stats, you’ll obviously deport the people you can arrest easily. Deportations are a shit tool if your goal is justice or safety, and they are extremely easy to abuse.

    I know someone who was nearly deported and who does live in constant fear of deportation. They are not allowed to take a job, are completely dependent on the welfare, they feel absolutely miserable all the time, and they are certainly not a career criminal.

    Like I said, your position is that all immigration should be legal.

    Lol. “Like I said, your position is”, even to you that wording should be cue.

    Cool story

    So you didn’t get the point that was being made, or you have no way to refute it?

    Your experience as a landlord seemed irrelevant to the topic.

    It’s no wonder why you claim that a party who want to control immigration are Nazis and should be banned from becoming too popular.

    Shall we recap this discussion between the two of us?

    • You called people who are in favor of disbanding the Afd party “nazis” and “fascists”.
    • I named a number of policy positions held by this party and its representatives that are in fact putting them fairly close to historic Nazism.
    • I asked whether these sorts of positions were positions that could reasonably be called democratic.
    • You claimed that your comment was being distorted by my listing of their policy. (Also that you were being called a nazi. Actually, where?)
    • When we were done with that, you picked one of the policy items and tried to disect it.
    • We’ve been conversing about the finer legal details of pointlessly hurting and, in effect, often killing, people since.
    • Now you feel you’ve reduced ad absurdo enough and built yourself a few strawmen.
    • You claim that I am a nazi (capital N?).

    I’d still love to know, what you think of the positions that I wrote up above. Just take them at face value. Are those positions of a normal democratic party that should remain allowed?

    I am copying what I wrote above again:

    the people who want everyone with the wrong kind of mustache to be deported, who want citizenships revoked, who want to “remove the outmoded political party system”, who are already obstructing the judicial system in Thuringia, who want to defund public media because it’s “too woke”, who want to gut universities because they are “too woke”, who want to fuck up the environment because - guess what - also “woke”, and who want to overthrow the constitutional order

    • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      Immigration can and should be cut off at times. Here in Australia we have a massive housing crisis and cost of living crisis. We currently have all time high levels of immigration at a time when we have a housing crisis with homelessness skyrocketing. We literally cannot house the people we have, and most of the population can’t afford to buy a house because the demand far outstrips the supply which has caused house pricing to explode.

      The absolute best thing we could do at the moment is to cut immigration until we can get the housing crisis under control. What good does importing another million people a year do when we have nowhere to put them?

      “Illegal immigrants” is not “derogatory”, it is a factual description. They broke the law to enter the country. They are in the country illegally. They are an immigrant. Illegal immigrant. This is how language works.

      Bad faith? Having people apply for asylum before entering a country is a bad faith argument? Think about what is being proposed. Someone wants to get asylum in Germany. Before entering Germany they apply for asylum. They could do that from their home in the country they’re wanting asylum from. They could do it from any other country. The AfD is just saying “don’t enter our country illegally and then ask if you can come in - ask first”, which is fair because once they’re in the country there are people who will say they should not be allowed to be deported - like you. You’re making up the existence of these “offshore internment camps” in this situation.

      Is that the case with the photoshopped knuckle tattoos

      No, it’s the one where a bunch of room temperature IQ people thought that the annotations describing what each of the tattoos stood for were being presented as tattoos.

      The US government wants to deport people who are in the country illegally. That’s the “profile”. Not a single citizen has been deported so far. Deportations are a great tool for deporting illegal immigrants. This isn’t really debatable.

      Your experience as a landlord seemed irrelevant to the topic

      Ok so you just didn’t get the point. I’ll explain it again:

      Someone entering my house without being invited in is illegal entry. I offer a way for people to enter my house legally, a rental application. When someone applies to rent my house, I don’t let them move in while I review their application, because then if I chose not to accept their application they’re already in my house and I have to jump through all sorts of legal issues to get them out. Out of a place that they should not be. Instead what I do is review their application while they live in their current house, and if successful I let them move in.

      Does that help?

      All of your “they want to do x/y/z because they’re too woke” stuff - what actually are their policies? Do you mean that they want to defund government funded media who push certain ideologies and implement certain policies like DEI?

      The “remove the outmoded political party system” seems like something most of the far left want to do doesn’t it?

      • federal reverse@feddit.orgM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I’ve actually bolded the one thing I still would like to see you answer in my above comment. Stop beating around the bush.

        • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          who want citizenship revoked

          For who and for what? Going to have to be more specific if you want me to respond.

          • federal reverse@feddit.orgM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Targetting dual citizenship holders first who are deemed criminals. If I had wild guess, criminals means supermarket thieves as much as climate protesters. But who knows what the end result may look like.

            Fun side note: The German constitution does not allow the state to revoke citizenships unilaterally. The reason for that is that it was one the things that the historical Nazis used to legal-wash removing parts of the population. You know, just like the German constitution includes the right to asylum, specifically because so many countries refused to take in refugees from Germany in the Nazi era.

            • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 minutes ago

              Ok so speculation on your part there about how citizenship would be revoked. Cool story.

              Fun side note: if the constitution does not allow it then they can’t and won’t do it. As for the asylum one, they’re not suggesting banning asylum.

        • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          The “fuck up the environment” one is - without knowing their policy - I’m guessing about “renewables”?

          Here in Australia more and more people are realising that our “100% renewables” power plan is a complete shit show and is anything but “renewable” and will cause greater long term damage. More and more people want nuclear because it’s cheaper, cleaner, and doesn’t require the endless resources and space that “renewables” do. Our power prices have skyrocketed to some of the highest in the world the more we shift to “renewables”. Our government still refuses to tell us how much the total projected cost of the “renewables” plan is, with some estimates putting it in the trillions of dollars realm.

          • federal reverse@feddit.orgM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 hours ago

            So, for one, no it’s obviously not just about renewables. It’s about enabling environmental abuse of whatever sort. You can literally look at Trump in many ways. Afd is, in large part, propped by the same people as he is. Elmo even spoke at their party convention.

            And nuclear is not cheap. The only reason why people think that is that usually the cost of building plants as well as the cost of insurance is subsidized somehow, and the cost of final storage for 100k+ years is a complete unknown. It doesn’t even make sense to even think about final storage in economic terms, because who knows what people are capable of in 100k years. But when a nuclear plant is built, and has been humming along for a couple years, people start to think it’s cheap because they fail to see either end of the process. Cheap nuclear is a mirage.

            Solar and wind actually are cheap, can be rolled out decentrally, don’t require consumables, but you have to deal with their intermittency.

            Also, you have delved again into yet more topics. Which certainly is a fun distraction.